The Search for Samuel Bradley, 52 Ancestors #15

For many years, the origins of my paternal great-great-grandfather Samuel Bradley were a mystery.

Samuel lived in South Australia by the middle of the nineteenth century and died there in 1871, but the Australian records I had found did not identify his birthplace. His age varied between records, his arrival could not be established with certainty and family stories offered intriguing but sometimes contradictory clues. At different times, I considered whether Samuel came from Cornwall, Norfolk or even Prussia. I investigated several men named Samuel Bradley and examined more than one possible immigration record.

Then, in 2014, DNA evidence pointed towards a family in Macclesfield, Cheshire. Further matches accumulated over the following years, strengthening the connection. More recently, the discovery of an English marriage—and a comparison of two signatures in 2026—has provided important documentary support for the DNA hypothesis.

This is Samuel’s story, but it is also the story of how the search for his origins has developed over time.

Where did Samuel come from?

The Mount Lofty Hotel fire

Some of the most revealing evidence about Samuel’s early years in Australia came from an unexpected source: an inquest into the burning of the Mount Lofty Hotel.

The hotel was destroyed by fire in 1858 after an earlier attempt had apparently been made to burn it down. Reports of the inquest appeared in the South Australian Register on 6 and 9 April 1858. Samuel became a person of interest because of an earlier financial dispute with James, the hotel’s owner. Witnesses alleged that Samuel had threatened to burn James’s house. When called at the adjourned inquest, Samuel admitted making a threat years earlier during an argument about money. He denied, however, threatening the Mount Lofty Hotel or setting it on fire. His evidence provides an unusually detailed account of his early colonial life. Samuel said that he:

• arrived in the colony in 1849;
• initially worked on government roads;
• first met James near Mount Lofty;
• spent time on Yorke Peninsula;
• entered into business at the Bird-in-Hand Inn at Dry Creek with James;
• travelled to the Victorian goldfields several times;
• undertook fencing work at Mount Lofty;
• owned a section near Crafers; and
• was working as a general servant for J. B. Hughes in 1858.

The jury concluded that the hotel had been wilfully and maliciously burned, but there was insufficient evidence to identify the person responsible. No charge was laid against Samuel.

For my research, the reports were important for reasons extending well beyond the fire. They established that Samuel was in South Australia by approximately 1849 or 1850 and provided a sequence of employment, business dealings and travel before his marriage to Mary Ann Hines.

Clues from the Mount Lofty Evidence

Before DNA provided a new direction, I had investigated several theories about Samuels origins.

The Parsee – Initially, the most likely possibility was a Samuel Bradley who arrived in New South Wales aboard the Parsee in 1857. Further research traced that man to Hertfordshire and to a family associated with Wisbech, Cambridgeshire. However, the Mount Lofty evidence showed that my Samuel had already been living in South Australia for several years before 1857. The Parsee passenger could therefore be excluded.

Cornwall: Samuel’s connections with mining districts and his time on Yorke Peninsula raised the possibility that he may have come from Cornwall. Cornwall supplied many of South Australia’s nineteenth-century miners, and Cornish mining culture became a prominent feature of several South Australian communities. Samuel also made several visits to the Victorian goldfields. I found no record directly connecting Samuel with Cornwall.

Prussia or Germany: Samuel lived in the Adelaide Hills, close to communities established by German-speaking settlers. This led me to consider whether Bradley might have been an anglicised surname or whether Samuel could have had Prussian or German origins. The theory broadened my search, but I found no documentary evidence to support it – I did however have many DNA matches with German ancestry. These could have entered my family through many different ancestral lines and could not automatically be attributed to Samuel, who is an ancestor on my fathers paternal side. These matches have since been attributed to a previously unknown Prussian line on my fathers maternal side, see my 2018 blogpost for more information – Which Noll is it?

Whaling and Trade – Another theory explored was that Samuel may have arrived on one of the many whaling ship and possibly worked on the trading ketches that plied the coast of the Yorke Peninsular at that time. Had he jumped ship, was he a runaway sailor?

“Hochelariten,” Norfolk – An unsourced claim in online family trees identifies my ancestor as “Samuel Alexander Bradley,” supposedly born at “Hochelariten” in Norfolk. I could not locate such a place in Norfolk or find an original record supporting the claim. The information appears to have been copied repeatedly between online trees. Without a contemporary source, or even an identifiable birthplace, the claim cannot be relied upon.

Samuel did not explain how he travelled to the Victorian goldfields. His evidence in 1858 placed an argument with James at Golden Gully near Bendigo about four years earlier, suggesting that at least one of his journeys occurred around 1854. This appears to predate the mass Chinese migration from Robe that later became known as the Robe Walk. That movement began in 1857, after Chinese passengers were subjected to a punitive £10 tax when landing in Victoria. Thousands instead disembarked at Robe and walked hundreds of kilometres overland to goldfields including Ballarat and Ararat. Samuel may also have travelled overland from South Australia to Victoria, but there is presently no evidence that he passed through Robe or followed the route later made famous by the Chinese travellers even though he later married there in 1861.

Did Samuel arrive on the Troubadour?

The inquest evidence gave a possible timeframe for Samuel’s arrival in South Australia. The Troubadour, under Captain Blow, sailed from Gravesend on 24 November 1849 and Plymouth on 1 December. It arrived at Adelaide on 30 March 1850. Among its passengers was someone recorded simply as “S. Bradley.”

No surviving record located so far provides this passenger’s full name, age, birthplace or occupation. It is therefore impossible to identify “S. Bradley” conclusively as my Samuel. Nevertheless, the possibility is compelling.

In 1858, Samuel said that he had arrived in the colony in 1849. If he was the Troubadour passenger, he may have remembered the year he left England rather than the year the ship reached Adelaide. The activities described during the inquest also suggest that he had been in South Australia since about 1850. The Troubadour remains the strongest arrival candidate found so far, but the identification is probable rather than proven.

The DNA breakthrough

A major breakthrough came in 2014. I discovered that I shared a remarkable 67 centimorgan segment on chromosome 3 with a possible fourth cousin once removed in the United States. This potential cousin descended from a man called Thomas Bradley, whose parents were John and Sarah from Macclesfield, Cheshire, England. Thomas had a brother named Samuel. This led me to consider whether Samuel might belong to this Macclesfield family.

One DNA match—even one sharing such a substantial segment—was not enough to prove the connection by itself. The two testers might have shared another ancestral line, a family tree could contain an error, or the source of the segment could have been misidentified. It was, however, a powerful new lead.

Intriguingly, there was also a Macclesfield in the Adelaide Hills, established in 1840, situated on the River Angus on the eastern side of Mount Lofty quite near to the area where Samuel settled in South Australia. Could the place name have attracted him to the area or perhaps he was aquainted with some of the early settlers?

John and Sarah Bradley of Macclesfield

The DNA result directed my attention to Macclesfield, Cheshire. A Samuel Bradley was baptised there on 1 July 1821, the son of John and Sarah Bradley. His age corresponded closely with the age of 40 recorded when my Samuel married Mary Ann Hines in 1861.

John Bradley was described as a weaver in Samuel’s baptism. He was also described as a weaver in the 1817 baptism of Thomas, adding support for the conclusion that Samuel and Thomas belonged to the same family. A Samuel of the appropriate age was recorded in the 1841 census at Paradise Street living with a John and Sarah of an age likely to be his parents, all listed as silk weavers. Macclesfield was a major silk manufacturing hub from the mid 18th century and Paradise Street known to be famous for its terrace houses and integrated loomshops.

Visit to Macclesfield, Cheshire 2024

The Macclesfield family offered several points of agreement:

• the son was named Samuel Bradley;
• he was born at about the right time;
• his father was John Bradley, matching the 1861 South Australian marriage;
• he was the brother of Thomas Bradley, whose descendant shared the large DNA segment with me;
• John had the same occupation in the baptism records of Thomas and Samuel; and
• no record had been found showing that this Samuel remained in England once my ancestor began appearing in South Australia.

Samuel, son of John and Sarah, became the leading candidate for my ancestor.

Excluding another Macclesfield Samuel

There was, however, more than one Samuel Bradley of a similar age in Macclesfield. The second Samuel was baptised on 12 March 1823, the son of David and Mary Bradley. His name, age and birthplace made him a plausible alternative. This Samuel can still be found in England in the 1851 census. By then, the South Australian Samuel appears to have been living and working around Mount Lofty and Dry Creek. Therefore, we could conclude that the 1823 son of David and Mary was not the Samuel who settled in South Australia.

The DNA evidence continues to grow

In the years following the original 2014 discovery, further DNA matches emerged.

These matches descended through other descendants of John and Sarah Bradley, via both sons Samuel and Thomas. Importantly, many triangulated on the same segment of chromosome 3. In other words, they matched me and one another on the same portion of the chromosome, indicating the matches were ‘identical by descent’.

The growing group of independently descended cousins made it increasingly unlikely that the original match was coincidental or attributable to an unrelated ancestral line. The DNA evidence confirmed my relationship with this Bradley family. It also supported the hypothesis that the South Australian Samuel was the son of John and Sarah of Macclesfield.

A recently discovered first marriage

The possibility that Samuel had married before coming to Australia emerged only recently.

On 22 December 1846, Samuel Bradley married Esther Baxter at St Peter’s Church in Prestbury, Cheshire. The register described Samuel as a 23-year-old bachelor, a cotton weaver and a resident of Sutton. His father was John Bradley, whose occupation was recorded as miller. Esther was a 22-year-old spinster from Sutton and the daughter of Richard Baxter, a labourer. The record contains several details consistent with the man later found in South Australia. Samuel was of approximately the right age, lived in the Macclesfield district and worked in the textile industry. Most significantly, his father was named John Bradley.

John’s recorded occupation presents a discrepancy. He was described as a weaver at the baptisms of Thomas in 1817 and Samuel in 1821, but as a miller at the 1846 marriage. He may have changed occupations, “miller” may possibly have referred to employment in a textile mill or the information may have been recorded inaccurately. The 1841 census only five years earlier had still suggested he was a silk weaver. Further evidence is needed.

The discovery of the marriage raised a new and uncomfortable question: what became of Esther?

An Esther Bradley who died in 1853 was initially considered, but her death record identifies her as the wife of Jonathan Bradley, a publican. She was not Samuel’s wife. No record has yet been found showing that Esther died, remarried or accompanied Samuel to Australia. Nor have I identified any likely children born to Samuel and Esther after their marriage.

If the Macclesfield and South Australian records concern the same man, Samuel appears to have emigrated without Esther. Whether she was still living when he married Mary Ann Hines in 1861 remains unresolved.

Two signatures, fifteen years apart

The 1846 marriage register allowed me to compare Samuel’s signature with the signature on his 1861 marriage record from Robe. The comparison must be made using the signatures written beside the declaration that the marriage was “solemnized between us”. The names entered elsewhere on the records appear to have been written by the officiants or registrars. The two signatures were made approximately fifteen years apart and on opposite sides of the world. They are not identical, but they share several distinctive characteristics: the general rightward slant, the formation of the capital letters, the proportions of the surname, the tall looped “d” in Bradley and the sweeping final stroke of the “y”.

In my view, the signatures are strongly consistent with having been written by the same person. Handwriting comparison alone cannot prove identity, but it adds an important independent point of agreement to the name, age, locality, occupation, father’s name and DNA evidence. The comparison strengthens the case that the cotton weaver who married Esther Baxter in Cheshire was the baker who married Mary Ann Hines at Robe.

It also changes the interpretation of the family story that Samuel and Mary Ann ran away to marry. I had assumed that they eloped because Samuel was about 40 and Mary Ann only 20 and that her family objected to the difference in their ages. The newly discovered marriage raises another possibility. Did they travel to Robe because Samuel was already married?

The 1861 record does not resolve the question. South Australian marriage registrations were not required to record the parties’ previous marital status until 1868. Samuel may have been widowed, separated or still legally married to Esther.

Until Esther’s later life or death can be established, it is not possible to determine whether Samuel was legally free to marry Mary Ann or whether their marriage was potentially bigamous.

Samuel’s life with Mary Ann

After their marriage at Robe in 1861, Samuel and Mary Ann lived principally in the Crafers and Mount Lofty district. They had five known children:

• Amelia Hines Bradley m Renzor Slater
• Alfred Edward Bradley– died as an infant
• Matilda Hines Bradley m Joseph Amos
• Walter Hines Bradley m Corcoran and Zachariah
• Mary Ann Hines Bradley m Charles Coat (my great grandparents)

The records associated with Samuel describe him variously as a baker, labourer, government road worker, miner, general servant and fencer. Family tradition also describes him as a coachman or chauffer. His working life seems to have been varied and physically demanding.

Samuel’s death

On Thursday, 21 December 1871, Samuel was overcome by the heat and died from sunstroke whilst winnowing at the Adare property at Peachey Belt. The newspaper report indicated he lived at Crafers. Samuel’s burial place has not yet been identified.

A conclusion built over time

No single document states that Samuel Bradley of Macclesfield became Samuel Bradley of Crafers. Instead, the conclusion has emerged through several stages of research:

• South Australian records named his father as John;
• the Mount Lofty inquest established Samuel’s presence and activities in the colony by about 1849 or 1850;
• other arrival and birthplace candidates were investigated and excluded;
• a 2014 DNA match pointed to John and Sarah Bradley’s family in Macclesfield;
• further descendants of the family matched and triangulated on the same chromosome 3 segment;
• Samuel, son of John and Sarah, was the correct age to be my ancestor;
• John was described as a weaver at the baptisms of both Thomas and Samuel;
• another Macclesfield Samuel remained in England and could be excluded;
• a recently discovered 1846 marriage connected Samuel with Esther Baxter, this relationship is yet to be resolved although the 2026 signature comparison provided further evidence that the Cheshire and South Australian records may relate to the same man.

The combined documentary and DNA evidence confirms Samuel as my ancestor and places him within the family of John and Sarah Bradley of Macclesfield, but questions remain.

• Can “S. Bradley” aboard the Troubadour be identified more securely?
• What became of Esther Baxter?
• Was Samuel legally free to marry Mary Ann Hines in 1861? and
• Who, exactly, was his mother Sarah?

Genealogical research rarely ends with every question answered. In Samuel’s case, the evidence has accumulated over many years, with each new discovery changing the interpretation of what came before.

Together, the records, signatures and DNA allow us to reconstruct the journey of a man who travelled from industrial Cheshire to the roads, goldfields, businesses and farms of colonial Australia.

***************

Do you know more about the families mentioned in this post? If you are connected to any of them (particularly if you have DNA tested or are interested in doing so) I would love to hear from you. It’s the power of DNA that can help us break through our brick walls!

I would be especially interested in hearing from anyone descended from Samuel or Thomas through an unbroken male line. Such a descendant may carry John’s Y- DNA, which could add another piece to the puzzle.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me by sending a message via the sidebar of this blog or through Ancestry, Wikitree or Facebook.

***************